539 research outputs found
Space complexity in polynomial calculus
During the last decade, an active line of research in proof complexity has been to study space
complexity and time-space trade-offs for proofs. Besides being a natural complexity measure of
intrinsic interest, space is also an important issue in SAT solving, and so research has mostly focused
on weak systems that are used by SAT solvers.
There has been a relatively long sequence of papers on space in resolution, which is now reasonably
well understood from this point of view. For other natural candidates to study, however, such as
polynomial calculus or cutting planes, very little has been known. We are not aware of any nontrivial
space lower bounds for cutting planes, and for polynomial calculus the only lower bound has been
for CNF formulas of unbounded width in [Alekhnovich et al. ’02], where the space lower bound is
smaller than the initial width of the clauses in the formulas. Thus, in particular, it has been consistent
with current knowledge that polynomial calculus could be able to refute any k-CNF formula in
constant space.
In this paper, we prove several new results on space in polynomial calculus (PC), and in the
extended proof system polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) studied in [Alekhnovich et al. ’02]:
1. We prove an Ω(n) space lower bound in PC for the canonical 3-CNF version of the pigeonhole
principle formulas PHPm
n with m pigeons and n holes, and show that this is tight.
2. For PCR, we prove an Ω(n) space lower bound for a bitwise encoding of the functional pigeonhole
principle. These formulas have width O(log n), and hence this is an exponential
improvement over [Alekhnovich et al. ’02] measured in the width of the formulas.
3. We then present another encoding of the pigeonhole principle that has constant width, and
prove an Ω(n) space lower bound in PCR for these formulas as well.
4. Finally, we prove that any k-CNF formula can be refuted in PC in simultaneous exponential
size and linear space (which holds for resolution and thus for PCR, but was not obviously
the case for PC). We also characterize a natural class of CNF formulas for which the space
complexity in resolution and PCR does not change when the formula is transformed into 3-CNF
in the canonical way, something that we believe can be useful when proving PCR space lower
bounds for other well-studied formula families in proof complexity
Narrow Proofs May Be Maximally Long
We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted
in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n^Omega(w). This
shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w
must have a proof in size n^O(w) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower
bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) and Sherali-Adams,
implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank
are tight as well. Our results do not extend all the way to Lasserre, however,
where the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in
both n and w
Narrow proofs may be maximally long
We prove that there are 3-CNF formulas over n variables that can be refuted in resolution in width w but require resolution proofs of size n(Omega(w)). This shows that the simple counting argument that any formula refutable in width w must have a proof in size n(O(w)) is essentially tight. Moreover, our lower bound generalizes to polynomial calculus resolution and Sherali-Adams, implying that the corresponding size upper bounds in terms of degree and rank are tight as well. The lower bound does not extend all the way to Lasserre, however, since we show that there the formulas we study have proofs of constant rank and size polynomial in both n and w.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft
A Generalized Method for Proving Polynomial Calculus Degree Lower Bounds
We study the problem of obtaining lower bounds for polynomial calculus (PC)
and polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) on proof degree, and hence by
[Impagliazzo et al. '99] also on proof size. [Alekhnovich and Razborov '03]
established that if the clause-variable incidence graph of a CNF formula F is a
good enough expander, then proving that F is unsatisfiable requires high PC/PCR
degree. We further develop the techniques in [AR03] to show that if one can
"cluster" clauses and variables in a way that "respects the structure" of the
formula in a certain sense, then it is sufficient that the incidence graph of
this clustered version is an expander. As a corollary of this, we prove that
the functional pigeonhole principle (FPHP) formulas require high PC/PCR degree
when restricted to constant-degree expander graphs. This answers an open
question in [Razborov '02], and also implies that the standard CNF encoding of
the FPHP formulas require exponential proof size in polynomial calculus
resolution. Thus, while Onto-FPHP formulas are easy for polynomial calculus, as
shown in [Riis '93], both FPHP and Onto-PHP formulas are hard even when
restricted to bounded-degree expanders.Comment: Full-length version of paper to appear in Proceedings of the 30th
Annual Computational Complexity Conference (CCC '15), June 201
Hardness measures and resolution lower bounds
Various "hardness" measures have been studied for resolution, providing
theoretical insight into the proof complexity of resolution and its fragments,
as well as explanations for the hardness of instances in SAT solving. In this
report we aim at a unified view of a number of hardness measures, including
different measures of width, space and size of resolution proofs. We also
extend these measures to all clause-sets (possibly satisfiable).Comment: 43 pages, preliminary version (yet the application part is only
sketched, with proofs missing
A Generalized Method for Proving Polynomial Calculus Degree Lower Bounds
We study the problem of establishing lower bounds for polynomial calculus (PC) and polynomial calculus resolution (PCR) on proof degree, and hence by [Impagliazzo et al. \u2799] also on proof size. [Alekhnovich and Razborov \u2703] established that if the clause-variable incidence graph of a CNF formula F is a good enough expander, then proving that F is unsatisfiable requires high PC/PCR degree. We further develop the techniques in [AR03] to show that if one can "cluster" clauses and variables in a way that "respects the structure" of the formula in a certain sense, then it is sufficient that the incidence graph of this clustered version is an expander. As a corollary of this, we prove that the functional pigeonhole principle (FPHP) formulas require high PC/PCR degree when restricted to constant-degree expander graphs. This answers an open question in [Razborov \u2702], and also implies that the standard CNF encoding of the FPHP formulas require exponential proof size in polynomial calculus resolution
MaxSAT Resolution and Subcube Sums
We study the MaxRes rule in the context of certifying unsatisfiability. We
show that it can be exponentially more powerful than tree-like resolution, and
when augmented with weakening (the system MaxResW), p-simulates tree-like
resolution. In devising a lower bound technique specific to MaxRes (and not
merely inheriting lower bounds from Res), we define a new proof system called
the SubCubeSums proof system. This system, which p-simulates MaxResW, can be
viewed as a special case of the semialgebraic Sherali-Adams proof system. In
expressivity, it is the integral restriction of conical juntas studied in the
contexts of communication complexity and extension complexity. We show that it
is not simulated by Res. Using a proof technique qualitatively different from
the lower bounds that MaxResW inherits from Res, we show that Tseitin
contradictions on expander graphs are hard to refute in SubCubeSums. We also
establish a lower bound technique via lifting: for formulas requiring large
degree in SubCubeSums, their XOR-ification requires large size in SubCubeSums
Exponential Resolution Lower Bounds for Weak Pigeonhole Principle and Perfect Matching Formulas over Sparse Graphs
We show exponential lower bounds on resolution proof length for pigeonhole
principle (PHP) formulas and perfect matching formulas over highly unbalanced,
sparse expander graphs, thus answering the challenge to establish strong lower
bounds in the regime between balanced constant-degree expanders as in
[Ben-Sasson and Wigderson '01] and highly unbalanced, dense graphs as in [Raz
'04] and [Razborov '03, '04]. We obtain our results by revisiting Razborov's
pseudo-width method for PHP formulas over dense graphs and extending it to
sparse graphs. This further demonstrates the power of the pseudo-width method,
and we believe it could potentially be useful for attacking also other
longstanding open problems for resolution and other proof systems
The Power of Negative Reasoning
Semialgebraic proof systems have been studied extensively in proof complexity since the late 1990s to understand the power of Gröbner basis computations, linear and semidefinite programming hierarchies, and other methods. Such proof systems are defined alternately with only the original variables of the problem and with special formal variables for positive and negative literals, but there seems to have been no study how these different definitions affect the power of the proof systems. We show for Nullstellensatz, polynomial calculus, Sherali-Adams, and sums-of-squares that adding formal variables for negative literals makes the proof systems exponentially stronger, with respect to the number of terms in the proofs. These separations are witnessed by CNF formulas that are easy for resolution, which establishes that polynomial calculus, Sherali-Adams, and sums-of-squares cannot efficiently simulate resolution without having access to variables for negative literals
- …